Philosophy 2025 Paper I 50 marks Critically discuss

Q4

(a) How is Husserl's account of "I think" different from that of Descartes ? Critically discuss. 20 (b) "We can affirm the truth of any sentence in our total system, in the face of whatever experience, just so long as we are prepared to make adjustments elsewhere." Discuss this statement in the light of Quine's 'Two Dogmas of Empiricism'. 15 (c) Explain Berkeley's doctrine of nominalism and his refutation of Abstract ideas. 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "मैं सोचता हूँ" इस विषय पर हुसर्ल की व्याख्या देकार्त की व्याख्या से किस प्रकार भिन्न है ? समालोचनात्मक विवेचन कीजिए । 20 (b) "चाहे अनुभव की अवस्था किसी भी प्रकार की हो, हमारे परिपूर्ण तंत्र में हम किसी भी वाक्य के सत्य को प्रतिज्ञापित कर सकते हैं, जब तक कि हम अन्यत्र समायोजन/सामंजस्य करने के लिए तैयार हैं ।" इस वाक्य की क्वाइन के 'टू डॉग्मास ऑफ एम्पीरिसिज्म' के प्रकाश में विवेचन कीजिए । 15 (c) बर्कले के नाममात्रवाद के सिद्धांत तथा उनके द्वारा अमूर्त प्रत्ययों के खण्डन की व्याख्या कीजिए । 15

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 Philosophy questions

Directive word: Critically discuss

This question asks you to critically discuss. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'critically discuss' for part (a) demands balanced exposition and evaluation; parts (b) and (c) require 'discuss' and 'explain' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief unified introduction on epistemological turns in modern philosophy; body addressing each sub-part sequentially with clear sub-headings; conclusion synthesizing how these three thinkers differently negotiate the tension between experience, language, and reality.

Key points expected

Part (a): Contrast Descartes' cogito as self-evident, substance-based certainty with Husserl's transcendental ego as intentional consciousness; explain epoché and the noesis-noema structure as transforming the 'I think'
Part (a): Evaluate whether Husserl's phenomenological reduction overcomes Cartesian solipsism or merely reformulates it; mention intersubjectivity and the lifeworld as Husserl's later corrective
Part (b): Explain Quine's rejection of analytic-synthetic distinction and reductionism; clarify how this enables the 'web of belief' metaphor where peripheral statements face experience while core beliefs are protected
Part (b): Discuss implications: underdetermination of theory, ontological relativity, and whether this constitutes coherentism or radical holism; contrast with Carnap's verificationism
Part (c): Explicate Berkeley's nominalism—particular ideas as sole existents, general terms as signs for resemblance classes; connect to esse est percipi
Part (c): Analyze Berkeley's critique of Locke's abstract general triangle; evaluate whether Berkeley's alternative of 'notions' successfully avoids skepticism or collapses into conceptual nominalism

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	22%	11	Accurately distinguishes Descartes' substantial ego from Husserl's intentional consciousness; correctly identifies Quine's two dogmas and their interdependence; precisely captures Berkeley's attack on Locke's abstract ideas without conflating nominalism with conceptualism	Basic understanding of all three thinkers but conflates Husserl's noema with mental image, misstates Quine's holism as conventionalism, or presents Berkeley as denying all generality rather than explaining resemblance-based classification	Fundamental errors: treats Husserl as Cartesian, confuses Quine's web of belief with Duhem's thesis alone, or attributes Platonic realism to Berkeley; misidentifies key technical terms
Argument structure	20%	10	For (a), builds systematic comparison through epoché versus methodological doubt, then intentional structure versus mental substance; for (b), traces logical flow from dogma rejection to confirmation holism; for (c), moves from metaphysical premise to epistemological critique with Berkeley's own examples	Covers required points but with uneven development; part (a) descriptive rather than comparative; part (b) lists Quine's claims without showing how they support the quoted statement; part (c) describes nominalism and abstract ideas separately without showing their connection	Disorganized or fragmented treatment; no clear thesis statements; parts addressed in wrong order or with significant overlap; failure to distinguish exposition from evaluation in (a)
Schools / thinkers cited	18%	9	For (a): cites Cartesian Meditations and Ideas I; for (b): references Carnap, Duhem, and later Quine (Ontological Relativity); for (c): engages with Locke's Essay, Malebranche's influence, and contemporary readings (Winkler, Atherton); shows awareness of phenomenological tradition (Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty) and post-Quinean philosophy (Davidson, Putnam)	Mentions primary texts superficially; limited secondary engagement; may cite only one thinker per part without showing philosophical conversation; misses Indian parallel opportunities (e.g., Buddhist phenomenalism for Berkeley, Navya-Nyaya on particulars)	No textual references; confuses thinkers (e.g., attributes Quine's views to Hempel or Popper); anachronistic citations; fails to mention any secondary literature or competing interpretations
Counter-position handling	20%	10	For (a): evaluates whether Husserl's transcendental idealism escapes psychologism charge; for (b): addresses Grice-Strawson objections to Quine, or discusses whether holism undermines scientific realism; for (c): considers Russell's critique of Berkeley or the problem of individuating resemblances; offers balanced assessment without mere listing	Acknowledges obvious objections but treats them superficially; for (b) may note that Quine's view seems to make truth conventional without examining his naturalized epistemology response; for (c) mentions standard criticism without Berkeley's possible reply	No critical engagement; purely expository treatment; ignores 'critically' in (a); presents Quine's statement as obviously true or obviously false without argument; fails to see tension between Berkeley's nominalism and his theological solution
Conclusion & coherence	20%	10	Synthesizes three sub-parts around the theme of how subjectivity, language, and experience constrain knowledge-claims; shows how each thinker navigates the threat of skepticism differently; conclusion explicitly weighs which approach best preserves objectivity without reifying metaphysical excess; maintains thematic unity across 50 marks	Brief concluding paragraph restating main points; some attempt at synthesis but generic ('these three thinkers contributed to philosophy'); parts feel like separate answers with weak transitions; conclusion disproportionate to length	No conclusion or abrupt ending; parts completely disconnected; word count severely imbalanced (e.g., 70% on (a)); failure to return to the critical dimension promised in the question; missing or perfunctory final paragraph

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →